Gore, John L.

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.

Importance Trimodal therapy (TMT) is included as an alternative to radical cystectomy (RC) for definitive management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in current clinical guidelines. Moreover, a 2023 retrospective analysis reported similar oncologic outcomes between these treatments among patients deemed fit for RC. Data regarding the comparative value of these treatments are lacking. Objective To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation compared cost-effectiveness of treatments using a health transition state microsimulation model of patients with bladder cancer treated between 2005 and 2017 with 5- and 10-year horizons from a Medicare perspective. Model probabilities were informed by multicenter retrospective analyses published in 2023 comparing TMT with RC. The index patient was aged 71 years, with clinical stage T2-4aN0M0 MIBC, solitary tumor smaller than 7 cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, adequate bladder function, and lack of multifocal or extensive carcinoma in situ. Patients unfit for RC, radiation, or cisplatin-based chemotherapy were excluded. Exposures TMT and RC. Main Outcome and Measures Primary outcomes included effectiveness measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results For the index patient, at 5 years, the average cost was $30 525 higher for TMT than RC. Average QALYs were 3.87 and 3.94 for RC and TMT, respectively. As such, TMT was not cost-effective at 5-year (ICER, $464 291 per QALY) or 10-year (ICER, $308 638 per QALY) time horizons. On 1-way sensitivity analyses, TMT would become cost-effective if (1) TMT costs were less than $17 605; or (2) TMT resulted in an 11.6% improvement in metastasis-free survival relative to RC. Conclusions and Relevance In this economic evaluation study of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC, TMT was associated with improved quality of life but was not cost-effective relative to RC at 5 and 10 years given higher treatment costs. These findings highlight the importance of developing policy initiatives that help reduce TMT costs and of providing patients with accurate expectations of long-term toxic effects to help guide preference-sensitive care.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the systemic therapy options for patients with advanced RCC and summarize the new clinical data evaluated by the NCCN panel for the recommended therapies in Version 2.2024 of the NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer.

572 Background: Bladder preservation with trimodal therapy (TMT), which consists of maximal transurethral resection of bladder tumors followed by chemoradiation, is now included in guidelines with radical cystectomy (RC) as options for definitive management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Prospective randomized controlled trial data to help guide treatment selection are lacking, and prior efforts to bridge this knowledge gap have failed primarily due to poor accrual. A recent retrospective analysis comparing TMT to RC reported similar oncologic outcomes between these treatments when performed in highly selected patients. However, treatment toxicities and costs vary significantly between these management options. To investigate the impact of these outcomes on relative treatment value, we evaluated the comparative cost-effectiveness of TMT and RC for treatment of MIBC. Methods: Cost-effectiveness was compared between TMT and RC for patients with a solitary, muscle-invasive tumor less than 7cm, no or unilateral hydronephrosis, limited carcinoma in situ, and adequate bladder function (criteria utilized in a recent retrospective comparative series) using a microsimulation model with a 5-year horizon from a Medicare payer perspective. Additionally, a 10-year lifetime horizon was evaluated to better understand the impact of long-term outcome uncertainty on cost-effectiveness. Based on recently published multicenter retrospective propensity score matched data, metastatic progression and survival probabilities were assumed to be equivalent between treatments. Utility values and additional probabilities, including both short and long-term treatment toxicities, were obtained from published literature. Primary outcomes of interest included effectiveness measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model. Results: At 5 years, the average cost was $32,286.35 higher for TMT versus RC. The average QALYs were 3.88 and 3.96 for RC and TMT respectively. TMT was not cost-effective at 5-year (ICER: $379,917.21/QALY) or 10-year (ICER: $222,704.78/QALY) time horizons. On one-way sensitivity analyses, TMT would become cost effective if: 1) TMT costs were less than $16,152; or 2) TMT resulted in a 13.3% improvement in metastasis free survival relative to RC. Conclusions: Although it resulted in similar quality and duration of life, TMT was not cost-effective relative to RC at 5 and 10 years given higher treatment costs. These findings support the role of both TMT and RC in management of MIBC and highlight the need for continued efforts to reduce healthcare costs associated with TMT.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as “Preferred,” “Other Recommended Regimens,” or “Useful in Certain Circumstances.” This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the guidelines, including changes to certain systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC. They also discuss the addition of a new section to the guidelines that identifies and describes the most common hereditary RCC syndromes and provides recommendations for genetic testing, surveillance, and/or treatment options for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have one of these syndromes.

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.